Any of you computer programmers out there ever consider a sort of house rule 'shell' for the campaign to handle balance issues that the game developers didn't anticipate? For instance: If one side loses 3 missions in a row, they receive 1 xp and credits/influence in addition to the mission rewards. Kind of a boost to the existing rules because the campaign is snowballing out of control due to the winners always receiving more than the losers?

I understand how the campaign is supposed to be balanced, but since almost every win is accompanied by more rewards than the losing side, it is very easy for things to diverge into what plays like a little league vs the Yankees scenario...

Maybe each loss grants a random 'miracle' card that can be played one time for things like negating an entire roll or adding a round to the timer, or something else really heavy?

I've seen too many campaigns that go 6, sometimes 7 losses in a row and it's over at that point. There isn't any coming back from that kind of divergence...

Anyway - thought I'd ask if anyone has testing any kind of running shell rules to balance the campaign...

Good stuff in there. Specifically from the dev about losers guaranteed full rewards in the next mission...

In the next Story mission, because story missions tend to give XP rewards.

An easier house-rule would be to always limit the XP gap to just 1 or 2 XP.

Edit: And this post seems my 2000th post in FFG forums (mainly in this one)!

6 hours ago, a1bert said:

In the next Story mission, because story missions tend to give XP rewards.

An easier house-rule would be to always limit the XP gap to just 1 or 2 XP.

I think a 2 XP gap is reasonable and might be a better way to go about this vs the other suggestion of loser of two in a row gets winner XP reward.

Not a bad idea!

If the gap would increase to 3, either don't give both sides the xp or give both sides the xp (depending if you want a higher overall value or lower). Maybe compensate the winning side with 1 influence or 25/50c per hero

There is already a balancing factor in the game for Rebels that most people ignore, and that is crates.

A loss where you grab all the crates isn't all that different than a win where you grab none.

Generally your games shouldn't be so out of whack that you can grab all crates and still win, or lose and grab none.

For the Imperials who are getting stomped you should be able to guarantee a few wins with agenda cards.

So really, if there is an imbalance happening, it will almost always come down to a player simply being worse at the game than the others. That's just how games that aren't coin flips work.

To compensate for bad play, if it's the Rebel side, which it most often is as they're more complicated, allowing respeccing their XP choices or selling equipment for full cost can be helpful. But you're never going to be able to get around the idiot playing Gideon that insists he needs the best gun and will never use Command.

What about increasing the threat level? The open groups can be used to make the game more difficult by changing the threat available to the imperial player. For example say the rebels win a threat level 2, then two threat level 3 missions. Instead of waiting for threat level 4 bump it up +1 threat on the next mission. The snowball would at least have to roll up an increasingly steep slope. You could also lower the threat level by -1 if one side doesn't seem to get it or you know the mission is heavily favored to one side.

Fudging the threat level is quite a crude adjustment, and does not take into account the initial groups.

It would be easier for an experienced Imperial player to (instead/also) adjust the initial and reserved groups. (With the knowledge and consent of the rebel players that this will be happening.)

8 hours ago, Union said:

There is already a balancing factor in the game for Rebels that most people ignore, and that is crates.

A loss where you grab all the crates isn't all that different than a win where you grab none.

Often the round limit is already so tight that by the time the rebels realize they can't win, it's too late to get to all 4 crates. The decision to get crates can't always be made once you're certain you've lost - and it's a gamble before that - not many people I've played with are willing to risk losing the mission to grab another crate. Especially to get the 'intel' card...

I'm not sure 200cr is equal to an additional XP plus 100cr per hero, but maybe I'm wrong on that...

4 hours ago, a1bert said:

Fudging the threat level is quite a crude adjustment, and does not take into account the initial groups.

It would be easier for an experienced Imperial player to (instead/also) adjust the initial and reserved groups. (With the knowledge and consent of the rebel players that this will be happening.)

That's true, but to be honest, I think the game has a built-in mechanic that allows a similar result of balancing in the form of open groups.

A good Imperial player can choose effective open groups for the map/mission/class deck. That can make a huge difference in the outcome of the mission. Fudging the initial groups accomplishes the same thing, just a little earlier- but if the player levels are that horribly off (and if the group is competitive), they should probably consider shuffling roles around to make the group more balanced.

Been doing a lot of campaign balancing in all of my current campaigns so I'm reviving this old thread.

In all four of my current campaigns, there is some sort of balancing going on from one side or the other:

• In my core campaign with less experienced Rebels, they've chosen the "Medium" difficulty setting. Not disclosed to my players what exactly this means but I'm shooting for about a 50% win ratio for both sides (typically play two missions per session so it works out to one win and one loss per side). This is helpful in setting expectations as well as how I play. The Rebels are having fun in this campaign so it works. Also playing a straightforward class deck (Precision Training) which allows me to min-max my rerolls in one direction or the other. Side note, this deck is boooring to play
• In my Hoth campaign, initially the players wanted me to play without holding back. This has led to some very one-sided missions. I also intentionally chose some good agenda decks and even picked up Imperial Industry (which I admit is an overpowered reward that can really swing the campaign) - my main reason for wanting to win the attachment was because I'm playing Technological Superiority and going the Superior Augments route. Anyway, eight missions in and the Rebels are feeling a bit dejected so we're going to try some adjustments in the next mission: -1 threat level, -2 influence, and remove ~Stun from Imperial Industry.
• Playing as a Rebel in an HOTE campaign that has snowballed in one direction due to a fairly strong hero selection and very min-max type Rebel players. We've implemented a couple of balancing mechanisms (+1 threat level, +1 XP) so we'll see how those play out in the rest of the campaign.
• Playing as a Rebel player vs a first time Imperial player in a Jabba's Realm campaign that has been very one sided (7-0 in favor of the Rebels). We tried +1 threat level during our last session but the three missions we played were not particularly close. It doesn't help that we've been able to pick up every crate in all of the wins as well which only furthers the snowball effect. We are going to even out the XP (currently a 2xp advantage for the Rebels) to see if that helps with the bonus threat level but we may even consider increasing the threat level by 2.

How often do others have to implement such balancing mechanisms? I really enjoy this game but when campaigns tend to be very one-sided it takes away from the fun. Balancing mechanisms are helpful but they also can be a bit of a detriment to the competitive side of the game which is an aspect that I personally enjoy.